Tactical Gaming

[GJK]

Again, the Ch. H notes state "and is not available before 5/42." so a properly designed scenario should not include a German HMG in the OOB if the date is prior to 5/42.

This is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.

Well, it's your thread and you brought up the question about how or why ASL models the MG's for the Germans the way it does and so I'm just providing clarification.  We can leave ASL out of the discussion entirely if you so choose.  ;)

[Mad Russian]

Again, the Ch. H notes state "and is not available before 5/42." so a properly designed scenario should not include a German HMG in the OOB if the date is prior to 5/42.

This is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.

Well, it's your thread and you brought up the question about how or why ASL models the MG's for the Germans the way it does and so I'm just providing clarification.  We can leave ASL out of the discussion entirely if you so choose.  ;)

I'll discuss ASL with you if you like. It's the tactical game system that has sold the most copies and is probably the most popular. Every other tactical game will be compared to it at some point in it's life if it is in the same scale.

My point is that there weren't just HGM's after 1942. The MG34 had the exact same tripod as the MG42. The LMG's and MMG's aren't even brought up as being different.

Good Hunting.

[GJK]

My point is that there weren't just HGM's after 1942. The MG34 had the exact same tripod as the MG42. The LMG's and MMG's aren't even brought up as being different.

Good Hunting.

That's why I was saying that the counters are perhaps "mislabelled".  Throw out the words "medium" and "heavy" on those counters and just associate the MMG counter as being the MG-34 and the HMG as being the MG-42 and that the HMG counter is unavailable for use prior to 5/42.  And I may be wrong, but the LMG German counter would be the '34 but without mounting or optics.  There was a very long a detailed discussion about all of this over on Gamesquad years ago.  I could probably dig up a link to it if you like and we could relive that discussion over there if you like.

By the way, someone else mentioned Force on Force.  I'm hoping to give it a go this weekend.  It's a simple mechanic, but higher valued dice for superior trained troops with extra dice for "heavy" weapons and a loss of a die for each combat round taken during a turn.  Seems simple.  I'll see how effective I think that it is.  :)

[Mad Russian]

There was a very long a detailed discussion about all of this over on Gamesquad years ago.  I could probably dig up a link to it if you like and we could relive that discussion over there if you like.

I don't really care. It's their game and they can do as they like with it. I simply made one comment. I'm not here to go over every detail of ASL's game accuracy or lack there of.

Good Hunting.

[Jack Nastyface]

Sigh...this ASL rules clarification discussion is getting me all misty and nostalgic.  Sniff.

@ GJK
As mentioned, I do indeed enjoy FoF but it does require a bit of mindshift. I didn't think the "different dice" mechanism would make a big difference as opposed to something like a +1 or - 1 on a CRT, but it does.  I repeatedly put "same size" groups of Taliban fighters up against USMC units with dire results.  On the other hand, my USMC opponent did have very hot dice (on one roll of six dice, I had four come up "6"...he beat all of my results).

Jack Nastyface

[GJK]

That's the issue with the bucket of dice system - you can get a wide range of extreme results, as you pointed out, where as with a CRT you know the exact range of possible outcomes.  Some call it a liability of the BoD system, some call it an asset.

[Mad Russian]

It would seem to me that the card driven games would have an issue with a  finite set of results. I've only started to get into CC though, which is my only Card driven wargame, so I don't have enough experience with it to know how I feel about it. I guess the difference would be the overall chance percentages.

If we go by a 'normal' 2D6 roll you could only get 2 or 12 one time each if every possible result was rolled one time. The problem with probability is that there is a 1 in 36 chance that you get either of those results every single time you roll the dice.

With a deck of cards I can guarantee the maximum number of times to get either 2 or 12 by the number of cards in the deck with that number on them. Considering the number of games that are now diceless, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with the community.

Good Hunting.

[GJK]

Perhaps an over-simplification but I would then surmise that:

1) If your game needs a set of varied but completely controlled results for combat (or random events et al), then you should use a card-driven system. You may need to "control" the range and frequency of results in order to keep the game historical or less theatrical or for play balance reasons.

2) If your game is designed so that a wide range of uncontrollable results (again, combat, random events, etc) won't break the design, then you could look to using a 'bucket o' dice' type system.  Your design might even encourage some extreme results in order to add to the true chaotic nature of the battlefield.

3) This is the conservative-run of the mill solution: di(c)e and a CRT.  If your game needs to have a fixed number of results that have a guarantee range of effects depending on a set of criteria, then this is your option.  You get a select number of possible outcomes and those outcomes are guaranteed from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on your criteria (odds, etc).

Again, I may be over-simplifying it all but perhaps those are some rough guidelines.

[Toonces]

I don't have even a fraction of the board game experience of you guys, so take my comments for what they're worth in that context.

Having said that, I suppose on deciding on what tactical board game I'm interested in depends more on what level of gaming I want:  do I want to play a game, or do I want a simulation?  It makes a difference.  If I want to sit down with my friend on a Saturday afternoon and game for a few hours and have fun, I'm inclined to lean towards a more Euro-type game; I'm talking something like Commands and Colors level.  However, if I'm doing a study on how some battle turned out the way it did, maybe something like Gettysburg, then perhaps the chrome is necessary.  I break out Three Days of Gettysburg or something heavy like that, where while fun there is enough detail that I'm getting into the weeds, gameplay necessarily takes longer, and at the expense of difficulty and time I'm getting a better simulation of what the battle entailed.

Beyond that, though, I think computer games are inherently better at modeling the level of detail I perceive you desiring Mad Russian.  Just by nature of computers you can store so much more information and manipulate it in so many different ways that you can get a better, more "realistic" result...at the expense of playing with a friend across the table. 

My mind is going faster than I can type out my thoughts, but I'll just leave it like this:  There are a number of air combat boardgames- things from Flight Leader to Air War.  You go from something that is reasonably fast to play and captures some flavor to what is essentially a flight simulator in a box with Air War, taking minutes of real time to simulate seconds of game time.  You might get a more accurate simulation of air combat with Air War.  Yet Air War pales in comparison to a computer simulation like Falcon 4.0.  The computer simulation does everything Air War does much better and then some. 

I think tactical soldier-level board games like ASL are similar.  At the end of the day it's a game.  If you want to model tactical warfare, the computer can do it better; any level of detail you want. 

I was going to go on about how Red Orchestra 2 models tactical combat at the individual soldier level but I'll stop here for now.

[GJK]

Yeah, I think that you hit on something Toonces and I agree - I think that computers make for better simulators and IMO, board games make for better games.  Now that's generalizing quite a bit but the computers do simulations better I think is a given.  They crunch numbers and they can do all kinds of things behind the scene and then present it as a nice and shiny GUI for the player.  But if the player wants to know how the sim gets those numbers and to calculate some of that themself, then a board game might be better - though it could be painful if the guy is crunching numbers like a computer for a simulation!

Now the old argument that a board game makes for better gaming - well, sure, if you have someone to play against, the table space and the ability to leave a long game undisturbed then yes, gaming from across the table is probably the most enjoyable and intense ways to game a wargame.  Playing a boardgame also gets players involved more heavily IMO.  You get that tactile sensation when you pick up pieces, roll the dice, etc.  Personally, I love figuring out odds and modifiers and seeing the range of possible outcomes and then letting the dice fly.  Others (most?) hate that - "let me press a button and have all of that figured out for me" they would say.  I think that's where PC games lose me.  I can click in my sleep.  I used to laugh with Mad Russian, but when we would play Combat Mission, I would get so lazy in our Pbem games that I would just simply group select several units and charge them forward.  Click, click, click, click, click.  Ugh, got too tedious for me some times.

But I guess the bottom line is that there are pros and cons for both and yes, I would agree that PC's do simulations better while (generally) board games make for a more fun gaming experience (if the conditions mentioned above are met).  I don't know MR, but maybe you need to make the board game first and then a PC/Ipad/Android version next?  :)

[GJK]

I think tactical soldier-level board games like ASL are similar.  At the end of the day it's a game.  If you want to model tactical warfare, the computer can do it better; any level of detail you want. 

I was going to go on about how Red Orchestra 2 models tactical combat at the individual soldier level but I'll stop here for now.

I played RO2 the other night after I kept getting killed 10 minutes into a mission on ArmAII.  This is funny, but I needed something more "gamey" and less realistic because it was getting old dying time after time so early in a mission!  Maybe it gets to a point to where it's TOO much of a simulation and not a fun game.  I guess that threshold would vary from person to person too.

And as an aside, the thing that really frustrated me in ArmAII was I saw the incoming and I knew what I wanted my little pixel representation of me to do, but my fat fingers would fumble over the keyboard and I would kneel instead of go prone or there would be a piece of fence that wouldn't let me lay down all the way and I would be half in air and half on the ground and then I'd die.  Ugh.  I know if it was me in real life, my fat ass would be on the ground as fast as a 300lb sack of potato's could fall.  Point is, with practice, I could play that game better - that's fine - but am I really simulating the situation better or did I just learn how to better key-combo my key presses on the keyboard? 

Another thing that I think that FPS games in general get wrong is the field of vision.  There is no peripherial vision.  People can just sneak up to your side without you knowing unless you hear something.  I envision using three monitors with the two side ones being blurred to simulate peripherial vision or perhaps on a single monitor your panned out further but then the edges are blurred.  I don't know - surely I'm not the first to notice this so there must be discussions elsewhere.  Just some thoughts.

[ArizonaTank]

It would seem to me that the card driven games would have an issue with a  finite set of results. I've only started to get into CC though, which is my only Card driven wargame, so I don't have enough experience with it to know how I feel about it. I guess the difference would be the overall chance percentages.

If we go by a 'normal' 2D6 roll you could only get 2 or 12 one time each if every possible result was rolled one time. The problem with probability is that there is a 1 in 36 chance that you get either of those results every single time you roll the dice.

With a deck of cards I can guarantee the maximum number of times to get either 2 or 12 by the number of cards in the deck with that number on them. Considering the number of games that are now diceless, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with the community.

Good Hunting.

A related game mechanic is in Conflict of Heroes...the bucket of chits.  When a tank gets hit, you pull a chit to see what the damage is and put the chit on the tank.  OK for scenarios with low numbers of vehicles.  But when there are more than a few...the chance of specific results does lessen whenever they are placed on a tank. 

But it is still a fun game to play.

[Mad Russian]

There is the sim vs game aspect of every game we create/play. A part of my issue with board games may well be that I've spent so much time working with computer games. As has been pointed out, I can make those with as much detail 'under the hood' as I like, while game play is relatively simple. Board games have to have a lot of that 'under the hood' done by the gamer. All the numbers crunching.

My Grandson is not good with numbers and he struggles when using a series of charts on a CRT. If I do the math for him he does okay. He likes to play and it doesn't hold him back when we play together. It would absolutely have stopped him from ever choosing that type of game to play on his own or with his friends. Maybe that's a big part of the issue. Gamers that are weak in math will, without doubt, gravitate toward the less complicated combat resolutions.

My goal was to have ASL condensed down to a system that would cover everything from WWII through modern in the same system. The game would be infantry centric as is SL/ASL. The research for weapons was all done at the same time so the system would be seamless for different weapons systems. Nothing would have to be bolted on later as it was in SL. 400 pages of rules was unacceptable. I wanted a basic rule book of about 30 pages.

At the moment the system is pretty complete.

I have what I'm looking for as far as the base game goes. What I'm not 100% set with is the combat resolution system. That's why I came here to discuss the systems that have evolved since I left board wargaming so long ago. I don't mind abstract. What I do mind is limiting. The various shades of die rolling were there to give a range of results that were plausible and varied. I'm looking for that same range in whatever combat resolution system I use with my game. I may try out more than one to see how I like them.

@ Toonces - Your experience, or lack of it, is not an issue in this discussion. You know what you like and why you like it. That's all the qualifier you need for this discussion.

@ Arizona Tank - I looked at Conflict of Heroes long enough to find out that there were no leaders and I've never looked at it again. I can't imagine a tactical level game where the most important units on the battlefield were left out of the game. I wouldn't like the bucket of chits process either. I would fix that in short order by making  a lot more of the hit result chits. Not everybody has hundreds of blank counters laying around though.

Good Hunting.

[Toonces]

Strangely enough, I'm going to lunch with my wife to a restaurant right next to my FLGS and I'm almost certain he has or had a used copy of Fire Team there.  I'm going to grab it if I see it and I'll report back...

[weateallthepies]

As someone fairly new to board wargames, I've started on some of the newer titles and worked my way back. Surprisingly, to me at least, my favourite so far has been the original Squad Leader. So much so that I managed to get a complete collection and several copies of the base game, though I've generally only played the base game and I can see that the expansions make the system overly complex in terms of rules.

I have one of the Lock 'n Load games, but I just can't get on with the rulebook in that one. Need to give it another go with the fan edited rules that are around giving it some more structure.

For pure entertainment, I love the Conflict of Heroes games, though it's a very different experience.

I also really like the Valor & Victory rules. Future of this one is uncertain, though I have all the original print and play files, and the newest rules have been posted on BGG.

I'm also really interested in looking at Retro from Minden games, which reuses ASL/SL components to create a simpler game. There have been some positive comments recently so I'll probably pick a copy up.

I'm not all that fussed by the card driven games, though I probably need to try a few out.